Master data mapping scheme permitting querying

ABSTRACT

Embodiments permit searching across different system landscapes, for data associated with master data objects. A map is constructed comprising (explicit, inferred) connections between different pieces of data located in various databases, systems, and landscapes. In certain embodiments the map is constructed utilizing a parameter (e.g., family name) present in a received query, as a boundary condition. The map may be in tabular form, and may conform to a particular notation scheme. Once the map is constructed, the query is executed thereupon to search for relevant data. The corresponding query result is received and stored, ultimately for communication back to the user posing the original query. Embodiments may be particularly suited to returning private data of a unique entity (e.g., natural person, corporation, juristical person) that is stored over a variety of different master data objects (e.g., employee, customer, supplier) and across complex system landscapes.

BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise indicated herein, the approaches described in this section are not prior art to the claims in this application and are not admitted to be prior art by inclusion in this section.

A natural person can be represented by multiple master data entities, such as customers, suppliers, and employees. While in some cases such master data entities may be located in a same software system, alternatively they may be (potentially widely) distributed across a larger landscape made up of suite(s) of a number of different software systems.

Software processes may need to deal with more than one representation of a natural person in order to effectively perform required tasks. In order to accomplish this with accuracy and efficiency, it may be desirable to keep track of master data information in an organized and centralized manner.

SUMMARY

Embodiments permit searching across different system landscapes, for data associated with master data objects. A map is constructed comprising (explicit, inferred) connections between different pieces of data located in various databases, systems, and system landscapes. In certain embodiments the map is constructed utilizing a parameter (e.g., family name) present in a received query, as a boundary condition. The map may be in tabular form, and may conform to a particular notation scheme. Once the map is constructed, the query is executed thereupon to search for relevant data. The corresponding query result is received and stored, ultimately for communication back to the user posing the query.

Embodiments may be particularly suited to returning private data of a unique entity (e.g., natural person, corporation, or juristical person) stored over a variety of different master data objects (employee, customer, supplier) across complex system landscapes.

The following detailed description and accompanying drawings provide a better understanding of the nature and advantages of various embodiments.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a simplified diagram of a system according to an embodiment.

FIG. 2 shows a simplified flow diagram of a method according to an embodiment.

FIGS. 3A-D are tables including master data information in an example.

FIGS. 4A-D present tables including master data information in another example.

FIG. 5 is a simplified view of a natural person with multiple representations.

FIG. 6 shows an example of a system to be mapped.

FIGS. 7A-B are tables showing mapping information.

FIGS. 8A-D show various elements of a mapping notation scheme.

FIG. 9 shows a graphical depiction of a map.

FIG. 10 is a table of mapping information.

FIG. 11 shows a different graphical depiction of a map.

FIG. 12 shows another graphical depiction of a map.

FIG. 13 is a graphical map that makes inferred mapping information explicit.

FIG. 14 shows a graphical depiction of another map.

FIG. 15 shows representation of inferred mapping information in a table.

FIG. 16 shows an example of a system to be mapped.

FIGS. 17A-B are tables of mapping information from the system of FIG. 16 .

FIG. 18 is a graphical depiction of mapping information.

FIG. 19 is a graphical depiction of a map leveraged based upon inference.

FIGS. 20-21 show different map graphical depictions.

FIGS. 22A-C show one possible querying approach.

FIG. 23 shows an example of a specific query mechanism applied to a system.

FIGS. 24-27 are graphical map depictions showing available information.

FIG. 28 illustrates hardware of a special purpose computing machine according to an embodiment that is configured to implement data mapping.

FIG. 29 illustrates an example computer system.

FIGS. 30A-T illustrate a querying approach according to an embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Described herein are methods and apparatuses that implement master data mapping and querying. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, numerous examples and specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments according to the present invention. It will be evident, however, to one skilled in the art that embodiments as defined by the claims may include some or all of the features in these examples alone or in combination with other features described below, and may further include modifications and equivalents of the features and concepts described herein.

Embodiments permit searching across different system landscapes, for data associated with master data objects. A map is constructed comprising (explicit, inferred) connections between different pieces of data located in various databases, systems, and system landscapes. In certain embodiments the map is constructed utilizing a parameter (e.g., family name) present in a received query, as a boundary condition. The map may be in tabular form, and may conform to a particular notation scheme. Once the map is constructed, the query is executed thereupon to search for relevant data. The corresponding query result is received and stored, ultimately for communication back to the user posing the query. Embodiments may be particularly suited to returning private data of a natural person, stored over a variety of different master data objects (employee, customer, supplier) across complex system landscapes.

FIG. 1 shows a simplified view of an example system that is configured to implement data mapping and querying according to an embodiment. Specifically, system 100 comprises an application layer 102 comprising a processing engine 104 that is in communication with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium 106.

The processing engine is in communication with a layer 108 comprising a number of different systems 110 that are distributed across multiple landscapes 112. Each system comprises different databases 114, which may include master data information 116 relevant to particular unique entity (e.g., a natural person).

Accordingly, the processing engine is configured to interrogate 118 the systems within the landscape layer. And, based upon linkages 120 (e.g., read permission) present between the database information, the engine is configured to gather 122 master data information relevant to the unique entity.

Using this collected master data information, the engine is further configured to construct 124 a map 126 thereof, and to store the map in the non-transitory computer readable storage medium. As described in detail below, the map may:

conform to a particular mapping notation scheme (e.g., at shown at least in FIGS. 8A-D);

be in tabular form (e.g., as shown at least in FIGS. 17A-B); and/or

comprise entries representing explicit connections 127 and also inferred connections 129.

Further details regarding map construction according to particular embodiments, are provided later below in connection with the example.

Then, based upon a query 128 received from a user 130, the engine is configured to search 131 the map to return a query result 132 with comprehensive information relevant to the unique entity.

While the above description has characterized map construction of the map as preceding receipt of the query, this is not required. Specifically, in certain environments the data volume of the landscape layer could be very large and complex.

Under such circumstances, rather than constructing a map relevant to all possible unique entities, the engine could instead commence with reference to parameter(s) 140 of the received query, which serve to establish a boundary condition (e.g., starting point) for map creation. An example of a parameter establishing such a boundary condition, could be a portion of the formal name (e.g., family name in a query) that is used as a starting point for constructing the map.

In the generalized embodiment of FIG. 1 , this boundary condition could provide a starting point for the engine's interrogation of the landscape 112 a to recognize the relevance of the piece of master data information A1 116 a. Further details regarding an approach that employs map construction based upon a query parameter, are provided later below in connection with at least FIGS. 22A-30T.

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a method 200 according to an embodiment. At 202, the method starts and proceeds either to map construction 204, or to receipt of a query 206 from a user. Either way, the method continues to the next phase (e.g., from map construction to query receipt, or from query receipt to map construction).

At 208, the query is executed to search the map. At 210 results returned by execution of the query to search the map, are received. Ultimately, those query results are communicated back to the user who originally posed the query.

Further details regarding data mapping and querying according to embodiments, are now provided in connection with the following examples.

EXAMPLES

One possible commercial application for certain embodiments, could be to provide access by a natural person to his or her private information that is stored in a landscape of systems. Such a right of access is now afforded by the European Union's recently-enacted General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR).

For a company such as SAP SE, providing such privacy information might involve determining all (digital) representations of a data subject (individual)—whether the data representations are a business partner, a customer, or a vendor, etc. As part of this task, linkages are determined to construct a map and followed up with gathering data related to the individual natural person.

As part of master data management, it is noted that master data entity duplicates may be present within the system landscape. Possible reasons for this duplication can be, e.g., transactions such as mergers and acquisitions, systems that are working in parallel, and different varieties of systems (e.g., test, development, production).

Linking together of duplicates calls for an effective mapping technique as is described herein. Thus, an exemplary embodiment is now described.

As a summary of the instant example, a concept producing uniqueness for ambiguous identifiers (IDs) is provided below. Data leveraged by ID mapping technologies facilitate a holistic mapping approach. A formal notation is introduced to represent mapping information as well as parts thereof. Inference is used to gain advantage of explicit mapping information. Furthermore, the aspect of mapping between different master data entity types is covered below. The influence of the entry point for mapping and bi-directional mapping information is then described. Lastly, a concept to deal with partial mapping information and an optimized query mechanism are explained.

There are different sorts of master data entities. Examples are customers, suppliers, employees. A certain sort of master data entity is referred to as master data entity type.

A master data entity has an identifier (ID). Examples are the customer number, supplier number, employee and personnel number. Using an ID, it is easier to refer to a certain master data entity. For technical systems, the ID may be the reference to deal with master data.

The uniqueness of IDs can be distinguished into the following levels:

Database table

Application/System

System Landscape

Universe

Looking at database level, master data entities are stored in a database table. The ID most often is used as primary key (or part of the primary key) of the database table. Thus, a single ID is unique within this database table. This constraint in typically enforced by the database management system (DBMS).

In FIG. 3A, the example Database table CUSTOMER has primary key customer number and some more table columns like pre- and surname. There can be only one table entry having customer number 4711 in database table CUSTOMER. The customer number is the ID which is unique within database table CUSTOMER.

Taking the database table for suppliers (FIG. 3B) into account, the ID (supplier number for table SUPPLIER) is still unique within both tables. However, the ID is not unique considering both tables (together).

In the example there are two master data entities using the ID 4711 (Paul Yee in the table of FIG. 3A and X Ltd. In the table of FIG. 3B). Thus, the ID is ambiguous.

Turning now to look at the application/systems level, mechanisms to overcome the ambiguity in the database layer may exist. An example could be to use a central number/ID assignment. Using such a mechanism, uniqueness may be conferred upon multiple or even all database tables within a single database management system (DBMS).

However, considering multiple systems even this approach still results in ambiguity. For example, consider two systems: S₁ and S₂. In both systems there are customers and suppliers—shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D respectively.

Here, the following IDs are ambiguous:

4711:

used in system S₁ to reference a customer (customer number of Paul Yee)

used in system S₂ to reference a customer (customer number of Sam Miller)

4712:

used in system S₁ to reference a customer (customer number of Chris Chen)

used in system S₂ to reference a supplier (supplier number of Go Corp.)

5164:

used in system S₁ to reference a supplier (supplier number of X Ltd.)

used in system S₂ to reference a supplier (supplier number of Lucky Ltd.)

8150:

used in system S₁ to reference a supplier (supplier number of A Corp.)

used in system S₂ to reference a customer (customer number of Don Balmer)

Even though all IDs are unique within a single system, they are all are ambiguous considering both systems S₁ and S₂.

Looking now at the system landscape level, again there may be mechanisms to overcome the ambiguity on system landscape level. One example could be by a central number assignment on landscape level. Such an approach would lead to unique IDs within a system landscape.

However, even with an approach to ensure ID uniqueness within a system landscape, there might be ambiguities considering two or more system landscapes. Considering the complex system landscapes of enterprises, reasons such as security or regional aspects, may result in the separation of systems into multiple landscapes.

Turning now to look at possible universal approaches, one solution to overcome ambiguity can be the usage of the so called universally unique identifier (UUID). Such UUIDs are always unique as the (still existing) probability of ambiguity is so small that it could be neglected. In addition, the creation of UUIDs can be decentralized—i.e., whenever a new UUID is required each system or database can create it on its own.

The persistent usage of UUIDs can solve many IT challenges regarding uniqueness. However, their usage in business processes involving individuals, can be cumbersome. One example of a UUID is:

1ee754a4-c1e5-4c8d-9024-d373646dabf3

The structure and length of UUIDs can make them hard to remember by people, and their usage may be error-prone. Accordingly, usage of ambiguous IDs remains an issue for at least human-touched business processes.

An exemplary approach for achieving a suitable level of uniqueness using ambiguous IDs (without using and/or introducing UUIDs), is now explained.

Given an ID that is ambiguous considering two or more database tables, the master data entity type is used to produce uniqueness on system level. Instead of simply writing the ID, the entity type is written in advance, separated with a colon (:).

The resulting notation is:

<master data entity type>:<ID>

where <master data entity type> and <ID> are placeholders for the respective values.

An example is now given. In FIG. 4A, the ID customer:4711 (Paul Yee) is not equal to supplier:4711 (X Ltd.) in FIG. 4B, even though the customer number and supplier number are the same. Thus, the IDs customer:4711, and supplier:4711 are unique within the system (considering both tables together).

According to embodiments, uniqueness on system landscape level is conferred by adding a system identifier. The notation is enhanced as follows:

<system identifier>:<master data entity type>:<ID>.

Examples are given in FIGS. 4C and 4D.

Accordingly, the following unique IDs are available for this example:

S₁:customer:4711

S₁:customer:4712

S₁:supplier:5164

S₁:supplier:8150

S₂:customer:4711

S₂:customer:8150

S₂:supplier:5164

S₂:supplier:4712

The issue of having a master data entity versus a unique entity (such as a natural person, corporation, or juristical person), is now considered. A natural person exists only once and is per se unique. There are different techniques for referencing a natural person. The most common one might be using a pre- and surname. However, few or even no techniques lead to (universally) unique identifiers. Most techniques lead to ambiguous identifiers (e.g. pre- and surname).

There might be multiple representations for a single natural person within one software system or even within one application. These might get created as duplicates by accident or for other reasons. FIG. 5 is a simplified view of a natural person with multiple representations.

ID mapping technologies may be used to express that a certain ID is linked or equal to another ID. For example, one could express that:

customer:4711 is equal to customer:7152.

IDs may only be mapped considering the same master data entity type. However, there is no need to retain this restriction. For example, in the use case of information retrieval for a natural person, all IDs linked to that person are relevant independent from the master data entity type.

Nevertheless, any ID mapping technology can be used to assemble such an overall/holistic mapping information record for a natural person. For example, the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) middleware available from SAP SE, comprises mapping information for master data entities SAP business partners and customers across systems. The SAP Customer-Vendor-Integration (CVI) comprises mapping information for customers, vendors, and SAP business partners within a system.

A structure for ID mapping information is now described. ID mapping information may not directly comprise a source and target information. Rather there is some configuration information that states mapping targets, whereas the mapping source is the current system. For example:

System S₁

-   -   ID mapping technology M₁         -   customer:1 maps to customer:2         -   customer:3 maps to customer:4     -   ID mapping technology M2         -   partner:5 maps to customer:6         -   partner:7 maps to customer:8     -   Mapping target: S₂

System S₂

-   -   ID mapping technology M₁         -   customer:9 maps to customer:10         -   customer:11 maps to customer:12     -   ID mapping technology M₃         -   customer:13 maps to customer:14         -   customer:15 maps to customer:16     -   Mapping target: S₃         There are deviations from this approach, e.g. providing for         multiple target systems.

In the course document mapping according to embodiments, information is represented having an explicit source and target information. In addition the information about the origin for each mapping record as well as via which destination the target system can be reached is stored.

Specifically, in the instant example a mapping record includes following information.

Source system's own given ID

-   -   The identifier the system from which the mapping record         originates gives itself. This ID is fixed at any time. It needs         to be unique upon all systems in a mapping scenario.

Source master data entity type

-   -   Master data entity type used in the system from which the         mapping record originates (source) for the master data entity in         question.

Source master data entity ID

-   -   Master data entity ID used in the source system for the master         data entity in question.

Target destination:

-   -   The name of the destination (a technical connection) via which         the mapping record's target system (target) can be reached. The         destination name which states the destination to connect from         the source system to the target system, i.e. the system the         mapped master data entity exists in. Important: this name is         most likely only be useable within the current system. It might         not be useable to identify the connection from outside the         system.

Target system's own given ID

-   -   The identifyer the target system gives itself. This ID is fixed         at any time. It needs to be unique upon all systems in a mapping         scenario.

Target master data entity type

-   -   Master data entity type used in the system target system for the         master data entity in question.

Target master data entity ID

-   -   Master data entity ID used in the target system for the master         data entity in question.

Name of the destination the mapping record was received with

-   -   When mapping information is shared with/transferred to other         systems this destination name states the destination via which         the mapping record was received (in the receiving system). In         the system where the mapping record was originally created this         name is not used and rather blank.

An example for ID mapping information is now given in connection with FIG. 6 . There are four systems in the system landscape, S₁, S₂, S₃ and S₄. Master data mapping information is available in systems S₁ and S₃. There are three master data entities is system S₁, two in system S₂, two in system S₃ and one in system S₄. System S₁ has a destination to system S₂ with name S₁D₁. System S₁ has further destinations to system S₃ with name S₁D₂ and to system S₄ with name S₁D₃. System S₃ has a destination to system S₄ with name S₃D₁.

Looking into the mapping information available in systems S₁ and S₂ shows the FIGS. 7A and 7B.

Mapping information modelling notation is now discussed. Representing mapping information in tables (like FIGS. 7A-B) as well as system landscape data in non-standardized figures (like FIG. 6 ) may be difficult and error-prone.

Accordingly, this example introduces the following notation to standardize mapping information and system landscape data.

A piece of mapping information is represented by a rectangular shape as shown in FIG. 8A. The piece of mapping information includes:

the system's own given ID (system)

the master data entity type (entity type)

the master data entity ID (ID).

As shown in FIG. 8B, destination information is represented by an oval shape. Such destination information includes:

the system's own given ID (system) and

the destination name (destination).

Thus looking at the table of FIG. 7A, the entry #1 would be noted as shown in FIG. 8C.

The combination of FIG. 8C is called a term. The fact that there is a connection between two systems via a destination (if there is a master data entity mapping or not) is noted by keeping the entity type and ID blank, as shown in FIG. 8D.

The system landscape configuration of FIG. 6 , and the mapping information of the tables of FIGS. 7A and 7B can be noted as shown in FIG. 9 .

Looking at the first “row” of FIG. 9 , it is read as system S₁ has a connection to system S₂ via destination S₁D₁. The first three rows imply that system S₁ has a connection to systems S₂ via destination S₁D₁, S₃ via destination S₁D₂ and S₄ via destination S₁D₃ as depicted in FIG. 6 .

The next three rows of FIG. 9 represent the information of the table of FIG. 7A. The second last row represents the connection between system S₃ and system S₄ via destination S₃D₁ as depicted in FIG. 6 . The last row represents the information of the table of FIG. 7B.

The inference of ID mapping information is now discussed. Taking the example of FIGS. 6 and 7A-7B, the mapping information available in systems S₁ and S₃ can be combined.

It should be noted that there is no information available at system S₁, which indicates that S₁:customer:3 is linked to S₄:customer:3. However, from the perspective of system S this can be inferred when taking into account the mapping information available in system S₃.

Therefore, this mapping information is transferred to system S₁. This results in the mapping information at system S₁ as shown in the table of FIG. 10 .

Here, the column ‘received via destination’, has value S₁D₂ to state that entry #4 was received from another system via the destination with name S₁D₂. When refining FIG. 9 , this fact is expressed by rearranging the shapes as shown in FIG. 11 .

Here, one term has just been moved so that identical pieces of information (rectangles) are joined. We define that identical pieces of information are collated (no duplicates). This is shown in FIG. 12 .

In addition, information on connections between systems is used to infer implicit mapping information pieces. FIG. 13 makes inferred mapping information explicit (dashed line).

The information on systems and their connections can be transformed as well, as shown in FIG. 14 .

This inferred mapping information can be represented in a plain table as shown in FIG. 15 .

The use of inferred explicit mapping information may confer benefits. In particular, turning implicit mapping information into explicit mapping information via inference offers several advantages:

Performance when consuming mapping information:

-   -   Applications and processes use explicit information (independent         if it is mapping information or other information). Implicit         information is transformed to explicit information before being         able to use it. Having made all mapping information explicit,         increases the performance of consumers of mapping information.     -   Alternative mapping paths create consumers for optimized and/or         alternative process flows:         -   Cost optimization:         -   There might be different costs for using a certain             destination. For example, the costs for data transferred             through destination S₁D₂ and S₃D₁ might be higher than using             S₁D₃. A direct communication from system S₁ to system S₄ for             processes concerning customer:3 might thus be cheaper. These             costs might be measured in €/$/ . . . or seconds/ms/ . . .             or even something else.         -   Resilience and reliability:         -   Whenever there is a break-down of destination S₁D₂ using the             inferred mapping information processes might alternatively             use destination S₁D₃ to keep a process running.

Certain embodiments may provide for mapping between different master data entity types and IDs. In particular, there is no need to restrict mapping information to mappings between equal master data entity types and IDs.

For example, the SAP Customer-Vendor-Integration (CVI) consists of mapping information between SAP business partners and customers as well as vendors within a system. Using the same ID for identical master data entities in all systems may not be possible or desired from an operational side.

Consider the example illustrated in FIG. 16 . Here, there are four systems in the system landscape: S₁, S₂, S₃ and S₄.

Master data mapping information is available in systems S₁ and S₃. There are two master data entities is system S₁, one in system S₂, two in system S₃ and one in system S₄.

System S₁ has a destination to system S₂ with name S₁D₁. System S₁ has further destinations to system S₃ with name S₁D₂ and to system S₄ with name S₁D₃. System S₃ has a destination to system S₄ with name S₃D₁.

Looking into the mapping information available in systems S₁ and S₃ shows the information of the tables of FIGS. 17A-B.

In the mapping information directly available in system S₁ we find: Master data entity S₁:partner:1 maps to S₁:customer:2 (in the same system, therefore target destination is “NONE”). Master data entity S₁:customer:2 maps to S₂:customer:2 as well as to S₃:customer:2.

In the mapping information directly available in system S₃ we find: Master data entity S₃:customer:2 maps to S₃:partner:2 (in the same system, therefore target destination is “NONE”). Master data entity S₃:partner:3 maps to S₄:customer:3.

The mapping information is depicted also in FIG. 18 .

Via inference, the following mapping information is leveraged, as shown in the dashed shapes of FIG. 19 .

Mapping between different master data entity types is possible. In this example actually most master data entities are linked to each other. In other words, all master data entities are representations of the same natural person.

An entry point for mapping information and bi-directional mapping information, is now discussed. The portion of actually available mapping information depends on the system which serves as entry point for querying mapping information.

A superior viewer who is omniscient could gain the knowledge/mapping information of the elements in FIG. 19 .

Let's check for each system in the example, for which mapping information would be available if querying is started at a particular system.

-   -   The start system for querying mapping information is S₁. The         mapping information shown in FIG. 19 would be gathered (=all         mapping information that could theoretically be gathered).     -   The start system for querying mapping information is S₂. Only         S₂:customer:2 would be gathered.     -   The start system for querying mapping information is S₃. FIG. 20         shows the mapping information that would be gathered.     -   The start system for querying mapping information is S₄. Only         S₄:customer:3 would be gathered.

The four cases show that the gathered mapping information depends on which system is used to start the query. Another reason for this is that the connections between systems are directed and not bi-directional.

At least the following are various reasons why connections between systems are directed:

for security reasons (restrict access)

no operational need for bi-directional connections

costs for operation and maintenance.

However, bi-directional connections which can also be represented by the existence of a second connection with the opposite direction, can increase the mapping information that could possibly be gathered. Let's take the already used example and adjust the system landscape so that there is another connection sourcing from system S₂, targeting system S₁. This adjustment is depicted in FIG. 21 .

Compared to just knowing S₂:customer:2, instead of no mapping information, all theoretically available mapping information is gathered. Compared to FIG. 19 , an additional connection via destination S₂D₁ (shown with big, black triangles) is available.

This leads so some further direction changes (e.g. between S₁:customer:2, and S₁:partner:1 via destination S₁:NONE). But, there is no loss of mapping information.

It can be summarized that additional/bi-directional connections may increase the amount of mapping information that could be gathered. Such connections are supported as well as intended by the approach according embodiments.

Partial mapping information and an optimized query mechanism are now discussed. Considering systems and system landscapes with numerous master data entities, querying all mapping information records of all master data entities from each system might be difficult, due, e.g., to the amount of to be transferred and stored data, communication costs.

The following (implicit) query mechanism may be used:

-   -   Step 1: Gather all mapping information (of all mapping         technologies) for all master data entities in the current         system.     -   Step 2: Gather information on all connected systems in the         current system.     -   Step 3: Trigger steps 1 to 5 in all systems gathered in step 2.     -   Step 4: Receive mapping information from all systems that have         been triggered in step 3.     -   Step 5: Consolidate mapping information of step 4 and pass this         it to the calling system (does not apply for the initial         system).

This approach can be called a snowball-approach. It may offer one or more of the following drawbacks.

-   -   The amount of data gathered in step 1 can be large. This impacts         further steps and/or might result in an unwanted resource         consumption in the current and subsequent systems.     -   Calling to each system that is connected to a certain system         (step 2) may result in numerous cross-system calls and         additional transferring a large volume amount of data. These are         typically resource intensive (e.g., processing time,         communication costs). Due to the fact that the subsequent         (connected) system do the same for their connections, the amount         of calls in the system landscape might reach a level affecting         other business processes or triggering security alerts.     -   Looking at the execution hierarchy of all steps in all systems,         the amount of data received in step 4 increases depending on the         hierarchy level. The higher a system is in the hierarchy, the         more data it will receive. The most data is received in the         system the process initially started at. It is unpredictable how         much data that will be.     -   Typically, for business cases not all mapping information of all         master data entities is necessary. Only the mapping information         of few or even only a single entity may be important.

In order to address such one or more such issues, the following boundary condition is defined. Only mapping information for a defined set of master data entities is considered (instead of all mapping information for all entities).

The querying approach is changed to be as shown in FIGS. 22A-C. The following abbreviations are used: (MI)=mapping information; (MDES)=master data entity set.

The introduced boundary condition limits the resource consumption as only relevant information is processed and transferred. However, the downside is that there is the chance to call systems twice or more times to assemble a holistic picture on the mapping.

A specific example of the query mechanism of FIGS. 22A-C is now provided in connection with FIG. 23 . There are four systems in the system landscape, S₁, S₂, S₃ and S₄.

Master data mapping information is available in systems S₁, S₂ and S₃. Three master data entities are in system S₁, two in system S₂, two in system S₃, and one in system S₄.

System S₁ has a destination to system S₂ with name S₁D₁. System S₁ has further destinations to system S₃ with name S₁D₂ and to system S₄ with name S₁D₃. System S₂ has a destination to system S₁ with name S₂D₁ and a destination to S₃ with name S₂D₁. System S₃ has a destination to system S₄ with name S₃D₁.

In some of the following figures, implicit mapping information is not made explicit for simplification purposes for ease of illustration. Otherwise, the figures would be crowded with shapes. Inference as described previously, can be applied.

Looking at FIG. 23 , we can see that the linkages between master data entites has the structure of a snail, i.e. each master data entity is like a pearl on a string. Let's apply the querying approach of FIGS. 22A-C to that system landscape, starting the query in system S for master data entity S₁:partner:1.

The execution of step 1 reveals the mapping between S₁:partner:1 and S₂:customer:1 (but not the one between S₁:partner:1 and S₁:customer:2), resulting also in MDES₂. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30A.

Step 2 results in an empty set MDES₃ as the found master data entities reside in another system (not the current one). Accordingly, MDES₄ contains S₂:customer:1. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30B.

In step 3 no repetition is performed because MDES₃ is empty.

Steps 4 and 5 result in MDES₅ and MI₂ as shown in the table of FIG. 30C. This is also highlighted (in the lower part of the FIG. 24 ) and C1 as highlighted in the upper part of FIG. 24 .

Step 6 just moves to the next step (I₁=all). In step 7 the steps 1 to 6 are triggered in system S₂.

Keep in mind we are at step 7 in system S₁, while we move on with step 1 in system S₂. The execution of step 1 reveals the mapping between S₂:customer:1 and S₂:customer:3. MDES₂ and MI₁ are filled accordingly. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30D.

Step 2 results in set MDES₃, as MDES₂ only contains entities that reside in the current system and an empty MDES₄. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30E.

Step 3 leads to a repetition because MDES₃ is not empty. Thus, we start over with step 1, whereas MDES₁ is set to contain all entries of MDES₃ (here only one entry). As result the mapping to S₁:customer:2 is revealed. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30F.

Step 2 results in an empty MDES₃′ and a filled MDES₄′. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30G.

In step 3 no repetition is performed because MDES₃′ is empty.

Step 4 results in the consolidation of MDES₁, MDES₁′, MDES₂, MDES₂′, MDES₃, MDES₃′ MDES₄ and MDES₄′ as well as MI₁ and MI₁′. Step 5 leverages the connection of system S₂. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30H.

Step 6 ends further processing and hands back the gathered information to system S₁ (due to I1=‘1-6’).

Back in system S₁ the execution is continued at step 8. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30I.

In step 9 the consolidation of MDES₅ and MDES₅′, MI₂ and MI₂′ as well as C₁ and C₁′ takes place. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30J. The now available information (drawn in black) is depicted in FIG. 25 . Still undiscovered information is not shown.

In step 10 the comparison of MI₂ and MI₃ shows that new mapping information is available (I₂).

Thus, in step 11 a repetition starting at step 1 is triggered where MDES₁ is filled with all master data entities of MDES₆ that reside in system S₁. New mapping information for S₁:customer:3 is found. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30K.

Step 2 results in an empty set MDES₃ as the found master data entities reside in another system (not the current one). Accordingly, MDES₄ contains S₃:customer:2. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30L.

In step 3 no repetition is performed because MDES₃ is empty.

Steps 4 and 5 result in MDES₅ and MI₂ as shown in the table of FIG. 30M. This is also highlighted (drawn in black, lower part of FIG. 26 ) and C₁ as highlighted (drawn in black, upper part of FIG. 26 ).

Step 6 just moves to the next step (I₁=all).

In step 7 the steps 1 to 6 are triggered in system S₃. Keep in mind we are at step 7 (2nd iteration) in system S₁ while we move on with step 1 in system S₃.

The execution of step 1 reveals the mapping between S₃:customer:2 and S₃:partner:3. MDES₂ and MI₁ are filled accordingly. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30N.

Step 2 results in set MDES₃ as MDES₂ only contains entities that reside in the current system and an empty MDES₄. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30O.

Step 3 leads to a repetition because MDES₃ is not empty. Thus, we start over with step 1 whereas MDES₁ is set to contain all entries of MDES₃ (here only one entry). As result the mapping to S₄:customer:2 is revealed. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30P.

Step 2 results in an empty MDES₃′ and a filled MDES₄′. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30Q.

In step 3 no repetition is performed because MDES₃′ is empty.

Step 4 results in the consolidation of MDES₁, MDES₁′, MDES₂, MDES₂′, MDES₃, MDES₃′ MDES₄ and MDES₄′ as well as MI₁ and MI₁′. Step 5 leverages the connection of system S₃. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30R.

Step 6 ends further processing and hands back the gathered information to system S₁ (due to I1=‘1-6’).

Back in system S₁ the execution is continued at step 8. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30S.

In step 9 the consolidation of MDES₅ and MDES₅′, MI₂ and MI₂′ as well as C₁ and C₁′ takes place. This is shown in the table of FIG. 30T. The now-available information is depicted in FIG. 27 .

In step 10 the comparison of MI₂ and MI₃ shows that new mapping information is available (I₂).

Thus, in step 11 a repetition starting at step 1 is triggered where MDES₁ is filled with all master data entities of MDES₆ that reside in system S₁. The whole process starts over one more time. However, no new information is revealed.

Step 10 in the 3rd iteration will thus not trigger another iteration but lead to the end of the process.

The uniqueness of system IDs is now discussed. A mapping information record as described above, and usage as well as inference of mapping information relies on unique system IDs.

Considering the example above, if there are two systems identifying themselves as S₁, there could be a (partial) break-down or even misleading and incorrect mapping information.

For this reason ambiguous system IDs are disallowed. Rather system IDs must be unique considering all systems relevant for the mapping scenario.

One approach for unique system IDs where no central authority is needed to guarantee uniqueness, could be to employ UUIDs. System IDs are typically technical IDs. Humans get in touch with system IDs at configuration tasks. However, other approaches (including a central authority) that ensures uniqueness of system IDs may be used.

A piece of code/technology may be used to query system IDs. Like querying mapping information via a call from one system to another system, there is the same approach to query system IDs. Unlike mapping information, the system ID is just a single identifier.

Returning now to FIG. 1 , there the particular embodiment is depicted with the engine responsible for mapping as being located outside of the database. However, this is not required.

Rather, alternative embodiments could leverage the processing power of an in-memory database engine (e.g., the in-memory database engine of the SAP HANA in-memory database available from SAP SE), in order to perform various functions.

Thus FIG. 28 illustrates hardware of a special purpose computing machine configured to implement data mapping according to an embodiment. In particular, computer system 2801 comprises a processor 2802 that is in electronic communication with a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a database 2803. This computer-readable storage medium has stored thereon code 2805 corresponding to an engine. Code 2804 corresponds to a map. Code may be configured to reference data stored in a database of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, for example as may be present locally or in a remote database server. Software servers together may form a cluster or logical network of computer systems programmed with software programs that communicate with each other and work together in order to process requests.

An example computer system 2900 is illustrated in FIG. 29 . Computer system 2910 includes a bus 2905 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a processor 2901 coupled with bus 2905 for processing information. Computer system 2910 also includes a memory 2902 coupled to bus 2905 for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor 2901, including information and instructions for performing the techniques described above, for example. This memory may also be used for storing variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor 2901. Possible implementations of this memory may be, but are not limited to, random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), or both. A storage device 2903 is also provided for storing information and instructions. Common forms of storage devices include, for example, a hard drive, a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD, a flash memory, a USB memory card, or any other medium from which a computer can read. Storage device 2903 may include source code, binary code, or software files for performing the techniques above, for example. Storage device and memory are both examples of computer readable mediums.

Computer system 2910 may be coupled via bus 2905 to a display 2912, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or liquid crystal display (LCD), for displaying information to a computer user. An input device 2911 such as a keyboard and/or mouse is coupled to bus 2905 for communicating information and command selections from the user to processor 2901. The combination of these components allows the user to communicate with the system. In some systems, bus 2905 may be divided into multiple specialized buses.

Computer system 2910 also includes a network interface 2904 coupled with bus 2905. Network interface 2904 may provide two-way data communication between computer system 2910 and the local network 2920. The network interface 2904 may be a digital subscriber line (DSL) or a modem to provide data communication connection over a telephone line, for example. Another example of the network interface is a local area network (LAN) card to provide a data communication connection to a compatible LAN. Wireless links are another example. In any such implementation, network interface 2904 sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic, or optical signals that carry digital data streams representing various types of information.

Computer system 2910 can send and receive information, including messages or other interface actions, through the network interface 2904 across a local network 2920, an Intranet, or the Internet 2930. For a local network, computer system 2910 may communicate with a plurality of other computer machines, such as server 2915. Accordingly, computer system 2910 and server computer systems represented by server 2915 may form a cloud computing network, which may be programmed with processes described herein. In the Internet example, software components or services may reside on multiple different computer systems 2910 or servers 2931-2935 across the network. The processes described above may be implemented on one or more servers, for example. A server 2931 may transmit actions or messages from one component, through Internet 2930, local network 2920, and network interface 2904 to a component on computer system 2910. The software components and processes described above may be implemented on any computer system and send and/or receive information across a network, for example.

The above description illustrates various embodiments of the present invention along with examples of how aspects of the present invention may be implemented. The above examples and embodiments should not be deemed to be the only embodiments, and are presented to illustrate the flexibility and advantages of the present invention as defined by the following claims. Based on the above disclosure and the following claims, other arrangements, embodiments, implementations and equivalents will be evident to those skilled in the art and may be employed without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the claims. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: interrogating a system landscape to determine an explicit connection between a first piece of master data information present in a first system, and a second piece of master data information present in a second system; determining an inferred connection between the first piece of master data information and a third piece of master data information based upon the explicit connection, wherein the third piece of master data information is present in a third system; constructing a map comprising the explicit connection and the inferred connection, the map comprising a table including, a first field indicating a first system identifier of a source system of the first piece of master data information, a second field indicating a second system identifier of a destination system of the third piece of master data information, and a third field indicating a destination system of the second piece of master data information different from the destination system of the third piece of master data information; storing the map in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; receiving a query comprising a parameter; executing the query upon the map to generate a query result comprising the first piece of master data information, the second piece of master data information, and the third piece of master data information; and storing the query result in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein, the first, second and third pieces of master data information correspond to a same unique entity, the first piece of master data information comprises a first type value of a master data information type, and a first master data identifier, the second piece of master data information comprises a second type value of the master data information type, and a second master data identifier, the first type value is different from or equal to the second type value, the map is constructed after the query is received using the parameter as a boundary condition, and a first entry of the table comprises the explicit connection, and a second entry of the table comprises the inferred connection.
 2. A method as in claim 1 wherein the first master data identifier is different from or equal to the second master data identifier.
 3. A method as in claim 1 wherein: the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises an in-memory database; and the query is executed by an in-memory database engine of the in-memory database.
 4. A method as in claim 3 wherein the map is constructed by the in-memory database engine.
 5. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying a computer program for performing a method, said method comprising: receiving a query comprising a parameter; referencing the parameter to interrogate a system landscape to determine an explicit connection between a first piece of master data information present in a first system, and a second piece of master data information present in a second system; determining an inferred connection between the first piece of master data information and a third piece of master data information based upon the explicit connection, wherein the third piece of master data information is present in a third system; constructing a map comprising the explicit connection and the inferred connection, the map comprising a table including, a first field indicating a first system identifier of a source system of the first piece of master data information, a second field indicating a second system identifier of a destination system of the third piece of master data information, and a third field indicating a destination system of the second piece of master data information different from the destination system of the third piece of master data information; storing the map in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; executing the query upon the map to generate a query result comprising the first piece of master data information, the second piece of master data information, and the third piece of master data information; and storing the query result in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein, the first, second and third pieces of master data information correspond to a same unique entity, the first piece of master data information comprises a first type value of a master data information type, and a first master data identifier, the second piece of master data information comprises a second type value of the master data information type, and a second master data identifier, the first type value is different from or equal to the second type value, the map is constructed after the query is received using the parameter as a boundary condition, and a first entry of the table comprises the explicit connection, and a second entry of the table comprises the inferred connection.
 6. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 5 wherein: the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises an in-memory database; and the query is executed by an in-memory database engine of the in-memory database.
 7. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 6 wherein the map is constructed by the in-memory database engine.
 8. A computer system comprising: one or more processors; a software program, executable on said computer system, the software program configured to cause an in-memory database engine of an in-memory database to: interrogate a system landscape to determine an explicit connection between a first piece of master data information present in a first system, and a second piece of master data information present in a second system; determine an inferred connection between the first piece of master data information and a third piece of master data information based upon the explicit connection, wherein the third piece of master data information is present in a third system; construct a map comprising the explicit connection the inferred connection, the map comprising a table including, a first field indicating a first system identifier of a source system of the first piece of master data information, a second field indicating a second system identifier of a destination system of the third piece of master data information, and a third field indicating a destination system of the second piece of master data information different from the destination system of the third piece of master data information; store the map in the in-memory database; receive a query comprising a parameter; execute the query upon the map to generate a query result comprising the first piece of master data information, the second piece of master data information, and the third piece of master data information; and store the query result in the in-memory database, wherein, the first, second and third pieces of master data information correspond to a same unique entity, the first piece of master data information comprises a first type value of a master data information type, and a first master data identifier, the second piece of master data information comprises a second type value of the master data information type, and a second master data identifier, the first type value is different from or equal to the second type value, the map is constructed after the query is received using the parameter as a boundary condition, and a first entry of the table comprises the explicit connection, and a second entry of the table comprises the inferred connection.
 9. A computer system as in claim 8 wherein the first master data identifier is different from or equal to the second master data identifier.
 10. A computer system as in claim 8 wherein the first connection is bi-directional. 